Bigger Is Better

Weekly Standard ^ | 08/06/2003 | Gary Schmitt

[Sparta]

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE Donald Rumsfeld can study the issue of active-duty troop strength all he want but it won't change the obvious: U.S. land forces are two divisions short of being able to carry out effectively its present responsibilities.

Winning wars is not enough. We must also be able to maintain the peace globally and win the peace after the battles have been fought. It is clear that we don't have sufficient troops on the ground in Afghanistan; we don't have sufficient combat troops in reserve to handle a serious conflict on the Korean Peninsula; we are running around the world trying to pry troops from any and all countries we can to fill out deployments to Iraq; and we are deploying our reserve forces at unprecedented levels.

Instead of addressing the problem, Rumsfeld's team will be studying how to "privatize" base security and non-combat jobs now performed by uniformed troops. They will soon discover, however, that only a small percentage of these non-combat jobs can be safely given over to non-military personnel and that the rest are not civilian-jobs-in-the-making, but tasks military personnel carry out for good reason--and, as such, require a military chain of command. Like any large bureaucracy, the Pentagon undoubtedly does not operate in the most efficient manner possible. And, to the extent one can, gross inefficiencies need to be addressed. But wringing the system of inefficiencies will not in fact solve the current crisis in end strength.

Rumsfeld's apparent strategy is to hope that today's high-level of deployments is more an aberration than the norm. But this runs counter to the broad implications of the National Security Strategy set out by the White House in September 2002. There will not be a return to the so-called "era of strategic pause" anytime soon. And it is a dangerous matter to pronounce a strategy that one cannot support safely and with confidence militarily.

Gary Schmitt is executive director of the Project for the New American Century.

[Sparta]

I agree with this editorial. We need 12-15 divisions in the Army and look at adding another Marine division. The trick is to build up these forces without compromising the quality of our armed forces.

[Seydlitz]

Amen, brother.

I like Rummy, but he's a hair's breadth away from becoming a new Robert McNamara. Conservatives must take him to task for his flawed vision. No Democrats have a sufficient understanding of military affairs and geopolitics for them to make any worthwhile contribution in this regard.

[dirtboy]

Winning wars is not enough. We must also be able to maintain the peace globally and win the peace after the battles have been fought.

How about we instead retract all the Clinton-era nonsense that Slick got us into, and then we'll only need one more division.

Gary Schmitt is executive director of the Project for the New American Century

That explains much.

[68skylark]

I'm going to disagree with the thrust of this editorial. Most people seem to agree that the country would be better off with another 6 active duty combat brigades (in addition to the 33 we have now), and perhaps another couple reserve combat brigades.

That's not a whole lot of people (30,000 to 35,000 folks on active duty). I think that adequate personnel can probably be found in the current force structure, by moving people from non-combat jobs where they now work.

Closing some bases will also help free up people for deployment elsewhere.

A similar re-organization could also increase the combat effectiveness of our reserves.

[Godzilla]

When I reviewed the number of active divisions during the Iraq war, when N. Korea was getting uppity, I was shocked to see how many divisions were retired in the 10 years since I got out of the service. We need more, not fewer, active divisions (as well as expanding the AF, Navy and Marines)

[Sparta]

We need more, not fewer, active divisions (as well as expanding the AF, Navy and Marines)

I agree entirely.

[KarlInOhio]

Another thing we need to do is bring more functions back into active duty units. It seems like any action, no matter how small, has required bringing up reserve units for the past decade or so. The Balkans and Afghanistan should not have required reservists. Iraq was big enough where it might have, but the functions of any reserve units brought up should be examined to see if we need to put them back into active duty.

[dark_lord]

only a small percentage of these non-combat jobs can be safely given over to non-military personnel and that the rest are not civilian-jobs-in-the-making, but tasks military personnel carry out for good reason--and, as such, require a military chain of command.

That's a crock. Yeah, we do need more combat strength. But it is an absolute fact that we have a LOT of positions filled by military personnel right here in the US that are never going to be forward deployed. Ever. And almost all of them could be filled by civilian contractors with security clearances. Anyone who has actually been in the military can tell you that.

Anyone who doesn't think so, think: pick, pack, ship, clean, guard, repair, maintain, and paper processing.

[Sparta]

Article 3 Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

I can tell you where you can shove your treason allegations.

[Ruth A.]

You cannot close bases and give civilians all the base jobs for the simple fact that they need to rotate to shore duty and away fromt he action for 2-3-4 years or so. Otherwise, this will no longer be a volunteer military. Military families need their fathers (or mothers, in a few cases--and I prefer this weren't so) to rotate home. Kids cannot cope with it, nor should wives be expected to cope with it non-stop.

Its all fine and good to talk about how to "fix it" when you haven't lived it.

[dark_lord]

I have "lived it". I was Navy, and the old joke was if the Navy wanted you to have a wife and kids they would have issued you a set.

Perhaps we should emulate the old Roman model and move the wife and kids to the foreign base. Then the forward deployment is not as much an issue. But of course -- that doesn't apply to long sea tours. And it comes with the hazard that in a place like S. Korea the family might end up in the combat zone. Perhaps the ultimate approach is just to recognize that combat personnel should not be married. Otherwise, too bad, live with the long "away" times.

[Eagle Eye]

Criticizing the capabilities of the U.S. military during war time strikes me as treasonous.

We have far too much reliance on the Guard and Reservists. I had a whole lot more respect for Reservists 7 months ago than I do now. We need more active duty troops. Some should be pulled from their clinton-era assignments, but we still need more active duty troops.

Are we catching a theme here?

And if you dare imply that I'm a traitor then I'll have to question your ancestry. Got it?

[Daus]

It is clear that we don't have sufficient troops on the ground in Afghanistan;

Not that the author bothered to either, but can anyone support that statement? This is just one of those things that get's repeated over and over without any critical evaluation.

What would more troops DO in Afghanistan? We are not there to rule and govern, we went in to clean up and help start a new government which is training it's own troops. That is getting done.